tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 8, 2013 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
released today by the government. tosident obama is good to make remarks at a senatorial event. he will return to the white house tomorrow afternoon. we have more live coverage to me up this afternoon. we will hear from the deputy non-tant secretary for liberation -- proliferation. p.m.l be live at 3:00 eastern in under an hour from now on c-span. warned ofkerry significant differences between iran and six world powers who are trying to fashion a nuclear agreement as he and three foreign european investors tried to narrow the gap. officials have expressed optimism about progress achieved in the third day of talks but comments from the secretary of state and his counterparts after
they arrived in geneva clear he indicated that some obstacles remain in the way of any agreement offering sanctions and reductions for nuclear concessions. >> regardless of where you are in the political spectrum, we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america and it is a very unique place. if america was considered to be a product and we do try to sell our product overseas, what is our brand? i think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law, and our values system. under that brand and under that values system there is that notion of equal under the eyes of the law. value systemandon is the ada and trying to elevate the rights of americans with this abilities. >> this is a treaty. a treaty. the treaty is a lot. the emotional and political
arguments that are in favor, no one can disagree with these arguments but the question is, will the treaty actually have the legal effect that is being proctored by the opponents of the treaty? we do not hear citations, we do not hear consideration of the reports, the concluding observations. we do not hear the kind of legal analysis that will be appropriate for analyzing the legal impact of this treaty. >> this weekend, more than 130 countries have ratified the u.s. inspired u.n. disabilities treaty which failed to win senate approval in 2012. the foreign relations to many took up the treaty again. watch saturday morning at 10:00 even -- 10:00 eastern. the upside of being a big fish in a small pond. saturday night at 11:00 p.m. lynette "squeaky" fromme
pulled the trigger. superbowl dome, built entirely at public expense after hurricane katrina, badly damaged. when it held football games again that was a football that a feel-goodwas story again. the public is invested in today's dollars, one billion dollars in the construction of the mercedes-benz superdome. the man who owns the new orleans saints keeps almost all of the revenue generated there. i think -- why don't people rebel against it? many people do not understand this is taking place. the second reason it, they feel like there was nothing they can do about it. it is based on insider deals and it is.
there was a vote in miami last year on whether to use public money to renovate the place where the miami dolphins played and the citizens voted against doing that. they got to vote on it. author gregg he easterbrook. >> a quick reminder of our live coverage. a discussion of whether the u.s. needs a new constitution from journal."ashington host: the opening line in your article, gimme the rewrite about the constitution is america, we have got some bad news. our constitution is not going to make it. it has had 224 years of commendable, often glorious service but there is a time for everything.
time to change the constitution? >> at least tend to think about it. the constitution is a wonderful document and i do not need -- mean to impinge its brilliance but if you go back and think about this the founders were creating something from scratch that did not exist in the history of humanity. we would have learned a lot in the past 224 years. it is one of the hardest to change. yugoslavia used to have that distinction but we know what happened to yugoslavia. it is time to think about modernizing and updating and about making some changes to make washington functional little better. you say that constitutions when they are developed are not based on the u.s. constitution. not useven americans do the constitution as a model. ii, they were given writing a new
constitution. they looked to the british model. more recently in iraq and afghanistan and there was a study that came out looking at the 729 constitutions that were written between will to in 2006 was a -- which was a huge amount when you think about it. very few use the u.s. model as a model for their own constitution. host: trending toward constitutional breakdown is baked into our dna. that would make a lot of sense intuitively. any system where you had a president and a legislation that are elected at different times from different parties but they have the same democratic legitimacy. they can have completely opposite agendas. you will end up with dysfunction and gridlock and breakdown of
what we had. doing the right thing and there is no constitutional, no democratic way to solve this. we rely on our rights to muddle through but what happens when this breaks down? >> you right you can blame today's actors all you want but they are the product of the system and honestly it is a wonder we have survived this long. i really believe that. i am sympathetic to the crowd and people who want to say get rid of everybody but i do not blame any members of congress very much. you can give some blame to more than others but this is a systemic problem. this is not a personality problem. it is not that people are acting in bad faith. the system itself fundamentally does not work. >> we have made it this far. >> absolutely. that is it a great credit to the brilliance of the founders and
the oldest living constitution on the planet. on one hand it is a great credit but that suggests that maybe it is time to start talking about emma thinking about updates and that is a conversation we have not had. the idea was to start the conversation. i am not trying to propose any definitive way. let's start the he about it. >> we have the amendments were you can amend the constitution. how many times has it been amended? >> 27 times. we have not had a substantive amended in decades. the most substantive one was in 1971 or 1972 to move the voting age to 18. since then the most recent amendment was written by james madison. that shows how difficult it is to get an amendment through the process. it is not a responsive system in the founders were rightly taking about tyranny and the system robust. i think they swung a little bit
too far in one direction to move back in the other. >> is in their fear that rewriting the constitution could center more power here in washington rather than in the state? >> absolutely. if you had an open, brand-new constitutional convention the ramifications are unknown. i would not necessarily favor that. there is a group of people who -- calling for article five an article five convention which is less radical. it is different from the traditional amendment process. instead of originating in congress this originates in the states. it does not put everything on the table. just what you want to change, more specifically on the table. >> you have quoted a
constitutional lawyer at the goldwater institute. a lot of people have conniptions when you start talking about changing the constitution. idea that the founders thought the constitution would be a perfect and unchanging document is simply not true. you go on to write that surprisingly, considering their reverence for the founders, conservatives have led the way in reimagining the constitution so they can add an amendment to create a right to life after roe v wade were to rein in the federal government. after roe v wade there were conservative calls to overturn the soup green court. that has been up there. that is from the goldwater institute which is an
organization -- this is a bipartisan effort and he has warren plessig- and they have a group that is advocating for an article five convention to make updates and amendments and tweaks to changing it. it is non-ideological. you could do something on campaign finance to rollback and anything you want through this venue. the idea is to use this message -- method to change things and update things. >> we will put the numbers up on the screen. talking about whether or not the constitution should be changed. the cover story appeared in the "national journal." talk about a political scientist who spent much of his
career trying to answer the question? " democracies work best if they are consensus instead of majority very and -- majoritari an. the u.s. is an opposite system ." go and dide went in economic analysis from the stability of government to how well people are represented and came away with this conclusion.
things tend to move along more quickly because you do not have a president and a legislature butting heads constantly. they are on the same team working together to do things in the opposition. it is not that they have free reign but there can find to minority legislatures and belgian went 20 months with no budget. there was a caretaker government installed and things kind of hummed along on autopilot and the same thing happened in canada at the same time we're are having one of our debates about the debt ceiling. the other thing that he recommends a
little bit more complicated but instead of having congressional districts where one person wins, -- of the vote and you have you have apportioned power based on the percentage of the vote that you get. democrats get 45% and republicans get 55 and that is the makeup of the legislature and he gives more room for third parties because if you get 10% of the vote that is not enough to win the district today. you might get five percent or 10% of the legislature. guest: the idea was created
out of a compromise. it was never thought to be a brilliant thing in the first place because small states wanted to have representation. they were afraid of getting bullied around in the house by bigger states so they created the senate to preserve states rights and power. with the 17th amendment which allowed people to directly elect their senators instead of the state legislature so they do not represent states anymore. they represent the people and that is a good thing. i do not see any justification for why wyoming with 600,000 people should have the exact same representation as california with 50 million people. if you are unfortunate to love -- enough to live in california you have 166 of the representation in the senate as somebody from wyoming and you have the filibuster which is not in the constitution. it is really right for change. is suggests expanding the
house of representatives, doubling in size to have it more close to the people and the senate he would expand also, not quite double to have bigger states and more representation. he would not make it like the house but you would maybe give california to senators are for extra senators. office ofis the national senators. maybe even the form -- former joint chiefs of staff and former justices of the supreme court who would look out for the national interests instead of the rogue real interests of their state. a snarky e-mail but it gets to where you have this article. says --ach
guest: someone has got to do it. i will take it. this is not my idea, this has been an idea that has been out there for a long time. i wanted to round it up and there is money of conservatives leading the charge here. sure, attack me but what about it is difficult and something a lot of people do not want to hear. host: this is a pretty extensive article. how long did you work on it? guest: about three weeks. a lot of people i have talked to have in working on this for years. this is partly my idea that i pulled from thin air. tweets in --
i do not think we should do a full constitutional convention. i only mentioned it in the context. the point is to make this more democratic than it is today. wouldn't a parliamentary system completely change the american way? >> no doubt. this is the way we have been doing things for a long time. america is different from every other country, american exceptionalism. maybe we decide we do not want to go that route. it is a question that should at least be posed, that we should
ask instead of just accepting the system as it is. if you would -- if you were to sit down and write a , and up date it with the modern values that we they would not write the constitution that looks like the one they did. andas a product of its time myriad political disagreements. dislike any -- we do not think that is unchanging. if you drill into it there is all kinds of small workarounds included in that. he idea is to think about that and to accept that there is potentially a better way to do things. ofyou also note that because our system and constitution it leads to judicial activism. >> absolutely. everyoneomething that
across the board -- there is so much unsaid, things that never occurred to the founders, they were working from scratch and they did a brilliant job considering they had nothing to go on. but more modern constitutions is.ess how much power there these are things the constitution does not address. the justices and court system have had to come in and fill in the gaps. you end up getting a decision from the bench because there is so little for them to go on. they have to create rulings almost from whole cloth and find these minor constitutional justifications for what they're doing and it is why you can have the swing and completely opposite directions within a few decades of each other. first thing that there is -- jim
crow is ok and come against it a few years later. ands left up to the courts the courts are humans and you put in the constitution, that at least preserves things on a more permanent level. with adam.ll start been talking about whether or not the constitution should be rewritten. should america [inaudible] by staying obedient? plannedg out that pre- explosives [inaudible] george, we are talking about the constitution. the, that you made a little while ago asking your
guest if there would not be concerned that more centralization of power in washington would result from rewriting the constitution. -- from a rewriting of the constitution. that sums it up in a nutshell. that would be the result. documentitution was a that was somewhat contrary to your guests comment. compiled completely in the dark. the founders were great scholars, many of them. it is a most incredible how well-educated many of them were. they were familiar with john locke and what had happened in england and the glorious revolution, that preceded ours.
in the 17th century. but the gentleman's comments are very interesting. i do believe that the attorney quoted as representing the goldwater institute, i was a verynd still am a fan of goldwater. he was trounced by lyndon johnson but there is no question about that. issuesws on some social and the pro-life issue i do not agree with. >> go to the constitution question. could make one definitive statement that our guest could respond to. in hiss interested
comments concerning wyoming. the founders set up a bicameral the housee so that which is the people's ranch but the is known as senate has always intended to put a brake on what the house does and that is a more deliberative body. if he is notnd already familiar with it, -- do you want to respond? >> we will start with the centralization point. would you end up with a more andralized government,
certainly it is possible. i think we might decide that we want to empower the states more than they are today. and give the states more. storyis a sidebar to the in case you want to get more constitutional about redrawing state lines. this is another thing that sounds kind of radical but if you think about it a lot of the states a specially out west where they are drawn kind of capriciously for political reasons. the found silver and present date country's did not want the mormons to have it so they created nevada out of whole cloth. the idea that the states are representing a kind of common interest which is what they are supposed to do. which is what the founders intended is not really true today. federalism does not function as well as it did. differentepresenting
constituencies. maybe we would decide that we could give states much more power. i think that is totally fine. the point is to raise this conversation to let the people decide what they think, what form of government they think is best. things have not changed so let the people back into the process. >> what if we redrew state boundaries? take new york city. this area is split needlessly across three states, congregating everything from transportation to transportation. they would all be one state. the city's five ro's have no business being associated with people north of dutchess county. >> this is the approach. if a martian came down and was tasked with drawing our state
rountree, not having any knowledge of history. there is no doubt that you would not draw the orders the way they are. there is so much important down on a state level. drawn -- whene they cannot get their act to govern their people the way that people want to be governed, it falls to washington to step in and fill the void. it's another thing to think about. host: the next call for alex seitz-wald comes from joseph in california. caller: hi, how are you doing? i want to say there is no need to change the constitution as they are not even abiding by the one we have. article one, section nine, and article one, section 10, disallow the state legislature from passing bills of attainder and that is what background checks are. they are laws that penalize a person because of his past, and that is illegal in the country.
host: mr. seitz-wald? guest: i do not want to get into gun control to much, but the courts have ruled on that, and the bill of attainder is legislation that applies to a specific group of people without reason to do so, and the court has said otherwise. host: is this available outside the firewall? guest: it is available at national journal.com. host: viewers who do not subscribe can read this much mark guest: you can -- this? guest: you can read it online. host: on twitter, we cannot fly a jet with a horse and buggy. time for the constitution to fit reality. it is not permanent.
guest: you do not want to be rewriting your constitution every five years. you could imagine if the pendulum swung too far in one direction, after 2010, when there was a republican wave, you would have a big swing. you want to preserve that, and the point of the constitution is to be removed and above the kind of foibles of the time. no major changes since the middle of the 1800's, and a fundamental document in place for 200 years, that is a long enough time. thomas jefferson said the constitution should be written every 19 years. by that standard we are over 200
years behind schedule. host: jeff is in west virginia. guest: good morning. hi, alex. as soon as i get off the phone here, i am going to get online and read your article. this is good stuff. guest: thank you. caller: the constitution was written so many years ago. take the second amendment, for example. if our founders knew what was going on today with guys walk into schools and murdering children, they would not put that in the constitution, the right to bear arms. it even states black and white in there, the right to bear arms as a member of a well regulated militia. even parts of the constitution are not judicially upheld. according to that, unless you are a member of the national guard, you do not even have the right to bear arms. we need a total overhaul of the system, and alex, you look like a guy with a good sense of humor.
go to youtube and check out trevor moore, drunk text to myself, the founding fathers video. you will love it. it explains everything. guest: well, it was low points on that. one, i would say -- two points on that. one, i would say this shows why an open convention would not be helpful and probably end in a stalemate because you have diverse views on gun control among other things. his view on the second amendment, and whether it's as a well-regulated militia, but courts have ruled otherwise, it gets back to the question of judicial activism, and if the constitution were more clear in whatever direction, to say the right to bear arms should not be infringed in any direction whatsoever, or here is how you can regulate, you would not have as much controversy because it would not look like judicial activism, or that the judges were not making things up.
it would be based in textual basis. host: you have a picture here from "two and a half men" and you write that the constitution is the same length as a screenplay for "two and a half men." 4800 words. is that a bad thing? guest: i do not know if it is a bad thing, but constitutions are much longer. the previous caller said founders were not operating in the dark, and they were very knowledgeable on philosophy and very learned, but they were right in the constitution based on something that had never happened before. it was based on their immense knowledge and learning. more recently, there have been 700 constitutions written since world war ii, and a best practice has emerged, and you
end up with longer consultations that are more specific and account for more contingencies. host: wayne. shreveport, louisiana. republican line. caller: good morning. i have not talked to you in months. i think the constitution needs to be left alone. the guy talking about we do not have a right to bear arms, he must be smoking something, because we have a right to bear arms and they should not be infringed. nothing should be changed. liberal democrats want to change the constitution. obama does not want -- does not follow the constitution. [indiscernible] we do not have leadership here and we have a monarch running the country. we need to leave the constitution alone. the only thing i can see is the liberals want to destroy the constitution, said that they can have their way and turn this
country into a communist nation. it is a sad thing, but the constitution needs to be left alone. dealing thing we should change is a president should serve six years instead of two years and get obama out of office in six years. that is the way i feel about it. host: thank you very much. alex seitz-wald? guest: he raises an important point. many other constitutions include the provision to be able to remove the resident or prime minister -- president or prime minister from power not because of crimes or for impeachment, but just because they are not being able to -- they are not doing a good job. you would have political concerns, but you could insulate that by having a large enough majority that it could not be something one party to do unilaterally. if the president is doing a
simply terrible job of running the country, there is no way to remove him from power unless he committed a civil crime, but i do not care as much if the president is a tax cheat if he is doing a bad job with the country. host: american hero wants to know what would the constitution say that we get money out of politics? guest: there are a lot of different proposals. one of the most interesting ones is a form of publicly funded elections, but instead of having the government collect taxes and then use the money to distribute to candidates, he would give everybody a tax rebate if they wanted it, and then you could use the money to fund candidates. you could choose who to fund. candidates would still need to fund raise and compete for your dollars, so there is still more
speech protected there, as the supreme court has said money is speech, but it removes the ability of supertex, these dark money groups to raise huge amounts of money from individuals, and he points out that a fraction of americans are responded -- responsible for the money given. this would democratize things host: chris and alabama says we the constitution alone, let the elections rewrite every cycle. brian. alex seitz-wald is our guest. caller: good morning. good morning, alex. what i would suggest is this, and i'm sitting here looking at the opening for the constitution of the united states of america, and i would asked the question, do you feel that president obama is living up to the expectations of our constitution, and if you have noticed, and i have watched c-span religiously since the obama administration took over,
i have watched him what everything that is in the constitution -- him thwart because he does not want to be told how to run the government, and i think it is time to consider impeachment articles. i hear it is in the senate, the democrats are holding up any possibility and not putting it on the table. this man has so much scandal in his wake that he should not be the president because of the suspicions, the allegations. i'm a common american. i have been around since post- kennedy, and i have not seen a good president yet, even though people will say clinton was a good president.
i believe ronald reagan, he was the first president that i ever witnessed live off of a speech. i noticed one thing off of our about our president, he takes no questions and host: -- questions. host: brian, thank you for your comment. any response, alex seitz-wald? guest: it gets back to the lack of confidence vote as something we might want to consider what meal -- or we might want to leave things in place. a lot of caller said said we should leave the constitution in place, and maybe that is the outcome, but we should have the conversation and then come to the conclusion. host: then there is just basic housekeeping, you write. any constitutional lawyer could point out the places that need work --
guest: these are all things, and contingencies that the founders did not consider. how could they have known about nsa snooping on e-mail and cell phones? that was not even in their imagination. the constitution says nothing about a right to privacy. most constitutions have a lot more rights of the bill of rights added onto the constitution, so you might want to consider adding a specific amendment saying that americans have the right to privacy, but right now, the way the courts have justified a right to privacy, which they have said it
exists, but you have to go through these loops. host: said here in their own homes? -- secure in their own homes? guest: right, you have to find these, so they work backwards to find a way to justify it. host: again, the judicial activism you discussed. vivian says it sound like a libertarian idea -- change the constitution. guest: absolutely. i am not trying to propose any kind of ideology. this is agnostic of ideology. you have people from the libertarian side, the conservative side, the liberal side, all for this, and if you were to write the constitution today, the libertarian streak is ascendant in both parties, and you might end up with a more libertarian document and maybe that is better suited for the 21st century, but i would leave
that up to the people to decide . host: mike in michigan. caller: this is a subject very near to me. i am 46 years old and i wrote about this for school in fifth grade, an essay about it, and i always felt it was wrong to live under this constitution because the founders thought it was ok to enslave >> -- blacks. to force jews to look at the swastika, i look at this the same way. we were treated worse than animals. obviously, because of the article that came with it, obviously they felt they were wrong for doing it, so we should change it completely and let it reflect what life is today, not what it was in the 1700's.
thank you. guest: the caller touches on something tremendously important and a flaw that a lot of people point out in the original constitution. from a more scholarly point of view, not get into the emotional issue per se, the way founders dealt with slavery exposes or helps to show how much of a political document this was. it was a compromise document, like so many other things and you ended up with the three/fifth clause, where the south wanted slaves to count as a full person said they would have more representation in congress, and this -- the north did not want it, it did you -- want it, and you end up with the 3/5 clause. nobody would hold up the dodd frank law or the affordable care act and say this is
unimpeachable, perfect legislation. constitution and the changes have to be made and constitutions should be treated in a similar way. host: the loudmouth jerk says the rights to free speech, self- defense and privacy will be the first casualties of a new constitution. jim. good morning. caller: this is so much academic hyperbole. and we are not a democracy. we are a representative republic. and most of what you are talking about is rules in the house. they are not constitutionally determined either. we have a situation where we are not really following the constitution as it is written. we have not really laws, but we are taking a loss and we are allowing folks, a president, a czar to create quasi-law that
has not been approved by congress or the proper means. the constitution, you keep saying he needs to be changed. it has been changed 27 times through amendments. it can be changed, and all you need to do is follow the consultation as it is written. guest: the caller is right in saying the constitution is not being followed as written. i disagree with them on the reason for that. i think it gets back to judicial activism, and a general consensus among everyone involved in government that we could not function at all if we went by a very strict reading of the constitution. it just would not work in today's world. so, you end up with this backwards reasoning to find ways to justify things on a textual basis.
i think that shows that we need to update things, not that we need to go back to, you know, the way things were written 224 years ago, but reasonable people can disagree. host: the caller touched on it, but this tweet -- would you explain the difference between a democracy and a republic? guest: the founders wanted to create a republic, not a democracy. today, that idea is foreign, and distasteful to most americans who consider the u.s. a democracy. the caller is right that the founders wrote a republic, but i do not think that is what most americans would want today. they only allowed landowning white males to vote and have the full right to citizenship. i do not think anyone or very few people would want to go back to that kind of system. the idea would be to enshrine a real democratic system into the constitution.
sanford levinson from the university of texas says the constitution gets close to a failing grade on notions of democratic theory. this was intended to be rule by enlightened elites. part of the reason no political parties are considered is because they figured this would be a group of landowning, wealthy, enlightened people that would come together and make compromise. that fell apart within five years after the constitution was written. 11 years after the constitution was written, militias were almost called out to washington. almost from the beginning, that idealized republic fell apart. host: wyoming. caller: good morning. i am so glad that people your age are looking at the constitution, but i disagree with you on many points.
the main point that i would like to make this morning, and several other callers have made this point, the constitution is not being followed. it has not been followed, and i would be asking the question, if it was followed, if you feel that it is not being followed as many of your callers have, what would the outcome be if the constitution were to be followed on a closer basis, and wouldn't that -- one of your main objections in your article, judicial activism -- if the constitution were to be followed more closely, wouldn't that also and judicial activism? thank you. guest: it is an interesting question. i do not know the exact answer because we are talking about a complete hypothetical here, but i think judicial activism is a product of what is left unsaid in the constitution, not so much
a product of any particular judge's ideals, although that certainly comes into the equation as well. it is really hard to imagine if you applied a very strict consultation, what it would look like today, but we are in a process that has been built over decades of both congressional law code and, you know, jurisprudence. it is based on the consultation, but it is not directly following the word for strict interpretation of the constitution. host: alex seitz-wald talked with sanford levinson from the university of texas. booktv interviewed professor levinson and you can write -- watch the interview at booktv.org. upper left-hand corner, there is a search function. type in sanford levinson.
bill is in marietta, georgia. democrats line. caller: alex, congratulations on your article. it is funny how people talk about how young you are and you should not be talking about changing the constitution, to my question is again, where are the jobs? everybody keeps talking about where are the jobs? if we want to talk about the constitution and wealthy white folks running the country, they are talking about voting rights in this country. you guys have a great weekend, and things will work out with the constitution because people will get tired and they will decide what they don't want. host: thank you, bill. the fact that a handful of landowning white, wealthy men wrote the constitution, does that affect the way it came out?
guest: absolutely. i do not think that necessarily disqualifies it by any means. it was a product of the time, an unfortunate era looking back in our time, but i do not think it means we should draw the document entirely. it just means we should keep that in mind when analyzing what they produced. the caller raise an interesting point about voting rights. just like there is no right to privacy in the constitution, there is no right to vote in the constitution. they did not conceive there should be a right to vote because that would give the right to women and people they did not want to have the right to vote. that might be something else we would include an updated version or amendment to instill a very basic, every american has the right to vote in the country, and that is part of the reason why there is a debate over voting rights. it is a gray area. host: who would write your proposed constitution? somebody from harvard, or someone from kansas?
they would look totally different. guest: there is no doubt about that. i do not have the answer to this question. there are a lot of different proposals. i do not favor a full on, "it is no convention, but sanford levinson, -- full on, open constitutional convention, but sanford levinson has proposed a lottery, not your elite, but your average americans selected by lottery, and they would have salary, resource and guidance by experts, but it would not be experts behind closed doors. if you are going to do this, you would need expert advice, but you would have to make it as democratic as possible, that not know exactly the way to do that, but it would be an important question. host: beth. republican line. caller: there are some people that want to revamp the constitution, and i do not think
that is necessary. host: turn off the volume on your television, will you? caller: people want to redo the constitution, but there are only slight parts of the constitution itself that are not being followed, and my thought is the government passes laws and then there is no funding for those laws, and that leaves it to the states. it is not exactly how the constitution wanted it to be because they did not pass those kinds of loss, and people want to expand the size of what rules we have based on, you know, making things more for the times, and the biggest example well, there are two of them. schools keep getting more and more money, but people who have
children and the list of things they have to buy for the schools themselves keep getting longer and longer. host: any response? guest: i am sympathetic to their point, that i was looking at how the government is structured, how laws are made, not particular laws. that is why gun control is not something i even get into because i am more interested in how the government functions on a more fundamental level, and that is where there is most need for reform, more than a specific policy area. host: clara is in murphysboro. independent line.
caller: good morning. i think congress should be limited and they should have to follow the loop -- rules they put in place. a good example are the eeoc laws. it is mandated that they put a poster in all of the offices across the united states and it says that we have equal protection, and if we feel like we have a complaint, we could go to the eeoc, but elected officials do not abide. the eeoc does not have jurisdiction over elected officials. unless you are a richer person or man, or a person that has been discriminated against, you are really still a modern-day slave. i would like to see the congress have to follow some of these rules they set in place for us, and i do not see how expanding the congress could help that.
now, you have to be a wealthy man or woman to sit in congress, first of all, or you have to have money behind you. i want to know how you would change, and as far as the second amendment goes, our county is putting army tanks in their budget. guest: congress should follow the laws that they passed. that is a pretty basic idea in democracy. when you think of the offices that a lot of the countries -- the cities have, and ombudsman, to make sure that the government is working properly.
maybe if you had an office like that might solve that issue. >> live now to the simpson -- stimson center. among the panelists is the deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. expected to get underway shortly. live coverage on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] afternoon. welcome to the stimson center. i name is brian finlay, and am the managing director here
and lead on an initiative called diminishing across boundaries initiative. i want to recognize our other cohosts from the stanley foundation. i want to thank her for joining us and for agreeing to cosponsor this event. stimson has a long history of working on the resolution, and our partners in the field has always been the stanley foundation. we are grateful for your long history of cooperation with us. the terroristter attacks of 9/11, the world was shocked by the exposure of the illicit proliferation network. for more than a decade, the black-market nuclear network to oned one-stop shopping told numbers of clients in libya, north korea, iraq, and potentially even with al qaeda.
the extent of this network i mentioned touching countries around the world, and the proliferation to terrorist organizations was far more located within than previously thought. in 2004, the united nations passed security council resolution 1540, which mandated controls on every country around the world to help prevent terrorist position of nuclear, chemical, and a biological weapons of mass destruction. that became a key soon effort around the globe to prevent proliferation, and three years the 9/11 commission gave the united states a failing grade for failing to implement the findings, particularly those directed at preventing terrorist acquisitions of wmd items. next year will mark the 10th
anniversary of the resolution, and this is a probation moment to look back and look forward 10 years after his -- after the resolution, how are we doing? how far have we come, and how far have we come, specifically in diminishing the likelihood of nuclear, chemical, or biological arms terrorism, and what more should we be doing? to engage in the composition of the next 60 minutes, we have my great pleasure to welcome three seasoned, somewhat haggard experts on this who have been involved in efforts to implement resolution 1540 over the course of the past number of years, within governments, international institutions, and in civil society, ngo's. simonwn, we have lemanche.
he has been in his position almost since the beginning of the obama administration and prior to that served many years on capitol hill about working these issues specifically from the other end of pennsylvania avenue. it is a great pleasure to welcome you to stimson. cupits,the we have rick who has a long history in academic economics also served on the 1540 committee of experts --new york for five years eight years. and is now at the u.s. department of state where he serves as the u.s. 1540 coordinator. he collects a lot of travel miles around the world, convincing countries to implement effectively the resolution. and finally we have johann berganus. is that correct? he is the director of the cross boundaries initiatives at stimson and is my partner and
our partner in our work and in stanley's work in implementing and assisting with the implementation of resolution 1540, particularly in countries of the developing world. rick, i would like to start with you. news is a recent bit of coming from your office in that the state department recently submitted its status report on its efforts to prevent terrorist ofivation -- acquisition weapons of mass destruction to resolution 1540. although we understand that wmd terrorism is an international phenomenon, prevention starts at home, i think. i wonder if you could tell us about what the report said and specifically a be point two some of the potential ongoing vulnerabilities that you found through this exercise that we might be in need of funding here at home. thanks to theand
large audience we have here at the stimson center and through the work that the stimson center and the stanley foundation has that. when i was in new york, the committee, they were one of the best friends of the committee and did quite a lot in the 9 -- .he non-government committee starting at home i would like -- i believe the u.s. -- one thing you will see the report is it demonstrates leadership in this area. it is one of the few states that has a legal measure in place for although more than 200 obligations for recommendations and the resolution, all of which are legally hiding on all states, so it is really pretty unique in that sense. i see a number of people here who contributed information to that report, because the scope
covers dozens and dozens of offices in the u.s. government, a and nearly 20 apartments in independent agencies -- 20 departments in independent agencies. it is an effort of the u.s. and the organizations within the u.s. who are trying to implement the resolution. i will say a number of measures were in place before 2004 and that is true for a lot of states. we already had in place a number of things to secure nuclear in our expert control systems. the report makes clear that the united states is engaged in an extensive and continuing effort to improve its implementation across the nuclear chemical, biological, and missile or means and so thisdomain,
means we have been working on things, and you can see in the report new steps that have been taken, either new regulations, new guidance, new programs from things from plant pathogens to , anding nuclear materials the report also identifies dozens of effective practices, and that is one thing the committee is increasingly in new york, the 1540 committee, increasingly interested in in compiling effective practices that a can share with the international community. has some tough lessons learned. there's discussion of the y12 plan. there's a lot of challenges there. these are reflected in the report as well. another area you can see is that the united states it has been
meeting and exceeding and intional standards, most realms, but not only that, but one of the things, another wave united states shows leadership, from my perspective, has been it is instrumental in developing effective -- identifying standards and effective practices in areas where there are no existing international practices or were very few. , unfortunately, in some ways, because we're working in some areas are there are no international standards and we are trying to develop them. i can point to a number of things in the areas responsible science programs. you can look most recently the onort to pretty extensive combating finance proliferation. those are really new fields, new domains for what the world is trying to do, and the united states has taken a lead in a lot
of those areas. i would also mention the united states is maybe a little bit less important, but it's direct relationship with the committee, it tries to establish leadership, not only by being on the committee and serving in some of its positions and what we would say the committee bureau. it oversees the transparency and media outreach working group, for instance, but it has provided that the united states has provided support to the you and office of disarmament affairs to help pay for some of the activities of the committee, in addition to its normal special and under little missions that are made there. we also at times, when some states seem reluctant to do things, the united states has stepped up. reviewing the other day picture i saw of simon at the very first country visit that the committee had, and that is
the committee had been suggested that the committee tried to engage countries more directly. originally, it had done a global and then a regional approach, and then we said we need to do more deeper engagement with individual countries. countryto do these missions. that went for a couple of years. and everybody was maybe it was an inspection. the united states stepped up and invited the committee to come down and have a really in-depth discussion, a set of meetings about how it is implementing the resolution. that was in 2011. since then we have now seen a number of states and 4 -- in four covenants invite the committee in, and there are two month, burkina faso and korea. examples. there is a lot of ways in which you can see in the report, it really is -- it took months and
i love contributions by nearly 20 departments and agencies, and having input into the report. ofcovers hundreds of pieces legislation, regulation, and guidance, directives, across all of these domains. to me -- and it is important we aep up and realize this is major report, a major compliment front of the committee being its first task was to see what everybody was doing, because in 2004, we might know a little bit about what was going on, what states were doing in implementing securing chemical materials. we might know a little bit about that. what we did not have a view across everything, all in one big place, and that is what the committee hasn't. >> on that visit you mention of the committee here to the united
states, did they point any particular capacity gaps or shortfalls in the u.s. implementation of the resolution that could leave a small durable to wmd proliferation? >> the u.s. pointed them out to the committee, the reverse. at that time i was with the committee. i came at it as an expert from the u.n. versus this way. a couple of things that we learned was i think a number of participants on the u.s. side in a country visit have told me that that was really instrumental in getting everybody to talk to one another. it helped with interagency coordination, and that is one of the things that we have noted at the committee level, but also in the u.s. is that it is critical for a lot of this to work. you have to get the right people in the room from all these different domains, because they
actually have a lot of things to share. i would point out for instance that the recommendation coming from the financial action task force about proliferation 1540 is you have to have the right people in the room. the nonproliferation people have to talk to the finance people. there was that. we had other people come up and termwe took this appropriate effective, and we applied it to -- we said this made better sense when we were thinking about how to secure our facility. we went back to first principles, and people noted a were saving money by doing this. there were things like that. people were willing to point out and say we do not have standards , thethat the time for this dual use research, that dirk standards had to be promulgated and say these are areas we have need and are still working to meet the. obviously,etary,
revenge and at home. we also know there are deep regulatory and capacity gaps internationally around the world , and perhaps the greater concern, i think it is a to say, in terms of proliferation to terrorist organizations is other entries, knowingly or not knowingly, will assist terrorists in obtaining the technologies necessary to build a weapons of mass destruction. so the united states is i think it is safe to say at the forefront of global efforts to assist countries in helping to that thatnsure reality does not come to fruition. i wonder if you could give us an update over the course of the past few years. 2007 when it from come as i mentioned earlier, the 9/11 commission in the bush administration days, before your time, at least in the
initiation, but you were on the hill at the time, it gave the u.s. ever met at the time a feeling great in their efforts eerie how far have we come to help other countries, and what are we doing? >> thank you, brian, and thank you, alan. it is a pleasure to be at stinson again. kudos to you and stimson for keeping these issues are alive. the large group we have here is the testament to the fact that this was a multidisciplinary, but also an issue that has carried forward not only by the writ large but also our international partners, academics, and also in some cases of the private sector. i think the way that i fit in this panel is as the owner of thinking asnd i was
to what might be the most topical pieces to share, because the 1540 mandate is such an -- has an inner mostly broad fergus across the spectrum, and the u.s. government -- and when i say that, i mean state -- but also the pentagon, the department of its respectivend programs, homeland security, fbi, other agencies that are here -- today have international engagement and capacity building arms and program and budgets and are all active in supporting --s very large ocean mission. we're all resource constraint, and we all look at the threat that 1546 to mitigate in slightly different ways. some of our congressional author risers and appropriators are here today, and in the mandates that each individual program
has, there are specific targets. there is no 1540 line item , simply a agencies series of programs who happened to have a second and third order effects, helping the international community to move out the areas of risk and danger. specifically, one of the engagementa is a bio program. there is work to be done in the health security field. my particular program, which is probably a smaller and distant cousin to the defense threat, bio engagement programs, seeks to look specifically at the nexus of a terrorist threat and capability directed at the united states, not as a priority order of the international community. while i look primarily at
bilateral assistance efforts, with countries that are a chief concern to the united states or partners that we can work with ge effect particular regions, i am heartened for example as a colleague of mine from the european union is here today within that time you describe, the european union coming ofward with its centers excellence initiative, which for me is tremendously important, because it is not only the united states and the few partner countries working on capacity building around the world, but a smart and strategic approach from a european partner that has decided that resources can be added to this particular exists to, but the existing initiatives that we have out there. this country's approaches bilaterally. we are all involved in certain key countries where we perceive threats or risks of
proliferation. we arewhole, because multidisciplinary, because we work as an interagency, because we work with our international partners, we have been able to ride out the vagaries of inconsistent funding. one observation i would make is you can think about this global architecture that looks at this prevent and respond capability across the nuclear world as described in 1540. progress is reversible. it is not like you are building a house rigged by brick, and when you work on the kitchen, you work on the kitchen, and when you're in the attic you're in the attic. progress can be undone. i am mindful of the fact that i engagement of border security and can you about a year ago with our
colleagues in the room, after the government at the time had ended out our advisor and the work we were doing there. we are always at risk of political change and in other developments that caused us to refocus our energies. and so i think i will leave it at that. questions and answers are the most interesting piece for the participants. on the whole, i think we're doing well and are mindful of the gaps that were identified by the commission, and we are in close touch through rick with center and the observations of the 1540 committee that are critical as we move forward. >> thanks, simon. i would not let you off the hook. you oversee dozens of different efforts in multiple areas around the world. i know you cannot pick favorites trade i will try to force you to pick a couple of favorites, and
i wonder if you could give us a couple of your favorite concrete examples of what we are actually doing on the ground to help these countries forestall or hopefully prevent terrorist acquisition of weapons and materials? >> a good question, even if perilous. it is friday, right? what can go wrong? usually. [laughter] of states, i dear a countryome -- when becomes a graduate par tner and works to promote certain activities and training and equipment and other engagements themselves rather than the united states, essentially, individually and bilaterally promoting a certain out,, in one area, and counter nuclear smuggling it is a focus -- the office of
weapons of mass distraction and terrorism, we detect it as the proliferation of nuclear material, and we work with colleagues from the dod, from fbi, intelligence community, etc. there are a couple of countries who have decided to take this engagement to heart and to do it themselves. .ithuania comes to mind there are a number of centers of excellence that have been associated with the nuclear security summit process, but there are only three centers of excellence with a strict focus on counter nuclear smuggling. this away now -- lithuania early andecided focus its energy limited resources on being a regional leader in an area that is of some concern to those who
follow the trafficking and proliferation of nuclear material. traineate a center to guards, foreign ministry officials, law enforcement, from the region. moldova have they had and police officers, they also had a kenyan official to come to talk to them about how to implement this in africa. that is a specific example where after a short time of bilateral engagement of a country decided, thank you very much, appreciate the relationship, and now we're going to take it from here, and i think the same can be said from some of our all can -- bal kan partners and then export their knowledge and ability. past 45, 6 spent the years running around the globe, latin america, central america, east asia, southeast asia,
talking to a lot of these governments. when the united states government is not in the room, what are these governments saying about -how to prevent- >> i suggest there are two different narratives and when the ngo community comes in. becauseod to hear about i am on the road to much to hear about you and the nonproliferation efforts and its obligations to implement the solution. it is an easier sell in washington to get the us government implement these wmd terrorism obligations. fundamentally different to talk caribbeantries in the and the regions that you east africa, central asia, southeast asia. and it is pretty simple -- the u.s. decided that wmd and the nexus to terrorism is the major u.s. national security concern. the president speaks about it
all the time. when you travel to the caribbean, the strategic issues there are trade and trade facilitation. when you are in east africa, you hear stories and strategic conversation about the nexus between various transnational organizations and organizations like al-shabaab, and that is the narrative -- >> wardrobe malfunction. >> that is the narrative in the most part of the global south. after job is, i think, for richer, more developed countries to do a better job of tapping in our capacity building in the wmd and 1540eration space and whatever it might be into those local needs. where are the overlap, order security, export control, in
broader societal resiliency that those countries in those regions are more focused on. how do we make that work for us long term? on -- alle touched three of you have touched on a theme that underwrites much of the challenge in terms of implementing these nonproliferation programs, which exist as much in this country, as in otherjohan, countries, and that is getting divers parts of your large and andtimes unwieldy arms governments to work in cooperation with one another. simon, i wonder if i could continue, because you are really at the pointy end of the spear in terms of convincing your colleagues across various agencies of government, via the energy, thef
pentagon, to begin to cooperate and work toward a common set of objectives. how are we doing on that? >> it is a great question, and i think it is probably when i was not in the administration a favorite topic of a number of commissions and studies and staff interest, etc. and a number of recommendations in the organized government, and a creation ofs congress because there was and perhapscern interest in ensuring the agencies with similar entitlement remission -- with similar commentary missions. from my perspective, we're doing well. you expect me to say that. receivesmeone who engagement in a lot of country, but with a smaller budget than at my, for i look
now to, dod's ability fund activities in the soviet union in the same country where the state department had engagement in bio corporation, is open arms, because there is simply an arrest amount of work to be done. we have different cultures. we approach things differently. there is a history of engagement that each agency has, and inetimes you could be southeast asia and look at one agency with dissidents and another with more familiarity. at the end of the day, it all sort of shakes out, and we do at multiple levels, because we have atand it is my job, look country plans and ensuring that we are doing the same thing. sometimes, i surprised to hear that a program
from another agency is in a country before we had anticipated and need to engage the country on a particular topic? of course. but i would rather be in that position and be struggling to activity oferest in a particular country. are we getting it right is a better question, and what is the baseline, and how do you demonstrate progress? i will be a little provocative. i talked about kenya. you mentioned the east africa. why are we in kenya? everyone else is and it is easy to do. there are other areas that are probably of concern to us that have less political interest in working with us, that do not want you as fingerprints on a cooperatively relationship with -- are our grudgingly grudgingly interested in our new narrative. it speaks to the point you are want to sell aay
cooperative threat reduction program using the language of security, but when my partner in that host country is really interested in economic development and how does this really matter, or i will give you an example. i was in algeria months ago, and algeria is a critical partner in north africa and in that region, and i spent two days discussing nuclear smuggling. my colleague at the end of the second day, said, we're here because we know this matters to you, but friendly we would be rather talking out about -- talking about conventional proliferation from libya. you learn from your engagement. yet he constantly reassess. i would not say that we have one hundred cent integration, but i have a pretty good sense of what my colleagues at the main agencies would do in threat reduction are doing on a given day. >> can i jump in?
i also had a regional experience, a very tough trip that i had to make a month ago into the bahamas. [laughter] for conference on trade security and broader counter proliferation program he. what we decided to do was to host a panel on day two after having heard the deeds of these countries. we put up a security countries'n, multilateral or his aces with development or his aces. we have the american interdigital bank, and you and counterterrorism executive directorate. we went down the line and the presentations were being conducted. these actors, they started talking with each other off- line. you do strategic trade security? that is what i do. but you are in development.
i'm supposed to be in security. example of how different agencies -- this was at the multilateral level -- have more in common than they think, and at the end of the day, there was the recognition that we need to attend forums to get them more friendly. those examples, i think, to the direct relationship of your leadership on some of these issues and opening the lens on the wmd nonproliferation for folio and how to connect, i think it is starting to happen more and more in these national systems. tell allem is we can't the stories and we can experience them in these parts of the world, where we need to build capacity. it is a little bit tougher to ofvince the appropriators having a wider lens of what is nonproliferation, capacity building resources can be used for. that would be the next step in
this work on global counter proliferation capacity. >> i will let you jump in, and i will warn you that we will turn to questions from all of you as well next. if you have a question, just raise your hand and someone with a microphone will come to you. as you do that, rick am a you wanted to -- >> this is one of the values of the 5040 committee and the un security council. while the u.s. sits on that and obviously has a great deal of influence, it is not control that him and it is recognized that the you and body -- u.n. body. when i am engaged with every state in the world overseas, it puts you in a different setting. committeeage is the and u.s. interests, at least in terms of implementing 1540, coincide. -- it can doch certain things that we cannot do the united states.
it has been a very valuable tool. i certainly learned the potential for it. it does not ever get very far away from issues of development and everything else, because the u.s. is on there and it applies to their, but there are 10 other nonpermanent numbers who represent the rest of the and ates in the world, 1.i think i counted at least 35 other countries who voted on resolutions in the security council that essentially extended the mandate of the committee. this is important to us. it does not get too far away -- it is important to us, but it will help us also deal with public health. for instance, securing your biological materials is an issue both for and not just human, but also for plants and animals and the agricultural side. there is all sorts of things that people see these links.
it is an important -- sometimes i think it will look at the u.n. and take it is some body that do not do much and cannot have -- us is one area where it really can have a really useful impact. ant to come back to you, rick and simon. are you sleeping better these days now that the u.s. implementation of 1540 and thomas simon, of you're not -- of your if nonproliferation programs. if we could go to the audience first, and then to the back. >if you could also identify yourself for our speakers, it would be helpful. security newswire. if you could please speak about by sensitivesed biological data. for example, there's a debate last year about whether papers
should be published that contain information on the modifications avian flu., are you finding in your engagement with developing countries that they are saying we want this information because we have severe talk with health issues and we do not necessarily see the terrorism concern outweighing the need to develop, measures, and not wanting to lose the opportunity to develop new medications that go to market? just a couple of weeks and global partnership net the focus of that meeting -- met and the focus of that meeting was science.
that was the focus of this. certainlys of issues came up, and one of the things that i think it was the general sense that if you get to the publication stage, it is probably too late, that we need to be talking about these things much earlier in the process. sense, i was a great think, certainly by the world health organization and others, that what we needed to do was engage further down the line and help scientists understand some of the issues that were raised by their research. and it was not a discussion about restricting that kind of information. if anything, it was more about a wider engagement with that community. the sense was not necessarily being expressed that
developing countries were in a position that they were concerned about not getting the information. it was more of how do we get the information in a responsible way. >> it is really interesting, isk them in that question representative of the conflicting interests around these him and gets back to -- in this case it is conflicting ence ands between sci the security community. we were talking about conflict joint security, which we want to build, runs and gates around sensitive materials or technologies, and development, which to see the free flow of these and the forces of globalization, all the positive aspects of that. indicative of this clash of interests, i think, that we face, unfortunately. it is one of the central challenges we face. right to the back, yes, sir. bbd news reports that saudi
arabia invested heavily in pakistan's nuclear program. if when iran gets one, do you consider this as a financial proliferation, or do you think it is ok for you people -- [indiscernible] like this? i do not have a particular answer, and i am probably not the best perspective the question. >> for me, first off, i would say the revolution -- resolution mainly deals with nonstate actors. i might leave it at that. >> sir? i spent many years in state
counterterrorism offices and work with some of them a nonproliferation peoples. we found a few years ago, and i wonder if that has changed, that many of these countries were not terribly interested in trying to strengthen their laws and relations on bioterrorism, which i am particularly interested in. i the grounds they did not have a pharmaceutical industry, they did not see the relevance to them. wondering if you are seeing much progress in that. the fact that you mentioned teams are finally going out to these countries, there's still a problem. on the coordination issue that you mentioned, knowing what other agencies have done, there is a law that goes back to about 1985 that the state department is supposed to report to congress annually all the various anti-terrorism-related programs that are going on, and the diplomatic security bureau, pull that together. when i worked ago
on a book, we did a chapter on wmd's, and i think i have lost track, maybe 20 different agencies that have a hand in it. i am wondering, and this depends on the personalities involved and the -- and others. do you see it improving, or do you think that progress can go backwards? i wonder what you're seeing on the trend lines. >> sure, i will give you my own perspective. rick can give you a more broader, more elevated view. i think we are seeing more countries adopt regulations and line what we would like them to see, seeing better practices and a number of key regions. with a tajik scientist yesterday whose trying
anddevelop something a committed to doing so in central and it is going to go in a risky direction soon. we have an interest in local , and inbeing successful that particular region, i was in the region a couple of months ago, there is such a rich set of experts who work in the bio field that a lot of the academic anditutions in central asia context on and the cheapest on and kyrgyzstan, in that we have long-standing relationships with. one of the other hats i wear as the u.s. representative to the science centers that were created in the 1990 plus two do
research in expertise. as countries in the west are pulling away from funding projects to the science centers, i love the countries in the region value those relationships in that discussion. thatheartened by the fact there is a number of key regions that are taking a serious approach to buyer security. that is the wage ago. it should be -- success should not become fully conditioned by washington's focus on those matters. limitedld say it is not to buyer security. one of the things the committee ceaselessly has to answer was, was, we do not have anything in our country. almost all of them do. currently the people do not know it. that is either some sort of bio
mindful that they are also us to be implementing the international health relations now of 2005, which involve -- to address cbnr issues. but ink of there, addition -- even though state to say we do not have anything, and they really don't at this time, many of them want to acquire this capability. it is a matter of getting things in place for developing a new bio signs or graham -- program -- bio signs program in a look past the stage. he see it on the chemical and nuclear sides. we do not have any radioactive sources. anywhere youitals, see oil and gas exploration. it is much more pervasive than a lot of people think you are not really exposed to the day-to-day commercial or scientific
activities that take place in their own countries. this was always an issue. you see a lot of states that have been taking steps, either through adopting new regulation especiallyguidance, when they build a new biocontainment lab that has a certain level of bio. they say, we need to have these related facilities, these regulations. those interested in the nuclear industry, for instance. them, sayings to we have controls that might have not been part of the program 20, 30 years in. you see change. there are still lots of gaps. the committee can point to lots of improvement, lots of states have taken many steps since 2004, but there is still i will
say a huge number of gaps. with very little in the way of regulatory structure or or enforcement capabilities to my and many times it is because of capacity problems. it is not limited to that. it is this idea that we do not clear and is not linked to any other problems. >> i would add on quickly, i am raised the who health standards because it is -- there's a lot a big overlap between bio security and public health. i am -- it is difficult to convince any given country that is losing millions of their citizens to preventable diseases , that they should invest bio security programming. is a little bit easier have a conversation about surveillance, public health infrastructure, and those topics that do a
benefit to both areas. >> a very good point. we will go here and then go up front. i'm a recent graduate student from american university. it was raised, the issue of trying to cooperate from the american standpoint with countries that might be hesitant to incorporate with us if they do not want our fingerprints in the country for a mod for whatever reason. i was wondering, would that be an opportunity for other actors, like the european union, to step up when it does occur, and the second question is, i know that a lot conventional weapons, proliferate from libya. a big initiative. a illegald have weapons program back and the date that was shut down. is there concern from the international community that there were remnants of that program lying around?
is that a concern at all? iaea.ill not speak to the perhaps i should've been more explicit. gapsnk identifying publicly to the international community can be a terrifying and nerve-racking experience for any country in the world, so it is not just effective we are the united states that could be problematic politically, but the whether you're-- dealing with nuclear smuggling, proliferation, and you do not have good ability to detect movement of goods and peoples across your borders, whether it is a poorly guarded by a facility, etc., the list goes on and on -- that is hard to grips with, and we experience working with countries like that, and we still work with them. we just did not publicize our and we areh,
incredibly careful about how we characterize it publicly. i think that is an important point. as i mentioned earlier, the eu has -- individual eu member states have a record of working bilaterally the countries to brm capacity. c the unit has a slightly different approach in engaging which has as its core a regional approach in getting countries to work together on common challenges. that could be important in a region like the middle east where the u.s. has a history of working on cbrn issues with jordan, turkey, but may have less success or more specific and limited success in a country like lebanon. so having the eeg and perhaps a different approach -- so having the eu and perhaps a different approach is all to the good for us.
he asked about libya. -- you asked about libya. the u.s. and the state department, anti-gun, specifically, have been rookie test have been working actively with the new libyan government in eliminating the legacy c.w. a state program, the nonproliferation disarmament fund funded the security upgrades at the site where the cut off the area stockpile was consolidated for the assertion, and dod provided the technology, expertise, and training for the libyans themselves to eliminate the program. we expect they are going to be able to complete their elimination of their program more or less close to the target date, a date set with the opcw. it is a concern, one that the current government is very focused on, and it is a nontrivial matter given the enormous other challenges that
we face. we will come up here at the front. any other questions? maybe we will take a couple of these together. >> i am from the liberty center. for the last 10 years of the community's existence, biological and chemical attacks have come from terrorist organizations. going forward, it seems with technology we're adding that one person with sufficient education, $100,000, and a basement can create a pathogen. how does that change the work that the state department to counteract this? >> and i think we will go here. >> hi. theve a question about challenges associated with having a multi sectoral approach to addressing these problems.
we have heard a number of people on the panel. you need to have a cross al approach, and you want to bring in the development community to link up capacity building and threat reduction. entities, theyse have to justify spending their funds, and there's a real tension there in terms of there's a lot of benefit opening the aperture, but in practice that is hard. you will hear from the state department colleagues how you manage that, and how you see international partners managed that within their own government. thank you. >> i would get the opportunity to plug harper, actually, which is going to be coming out next ofare, which yields many these things and looking at out not just the icing government, but other governments around the world also have tried to get that makes right. particularly, and countries of the developing world, so we have
a volume of chapters with the africa,ast, eastern from the americans, southeast asia and so forth, so i would commend that to you. unless there's another quick question, i will turn it to the panel for some -- >> i think we will all probably have some reactions, and perhaps taking the second question first, which is a very good one. i think our leadership within our agency and at the white house has an anonymous interest in thinking through national security problems in an interdisciplinary fashion, and as you point out, that does force us to address the inherent tensions with the fact that i do taxpayere my money, dollars, that were your mark for particular purpose, like congress, to do certain things,
and redefining and broadening the definition of a very specific bio or chemical or nuclear security engagement program to start worrying about other terrible and important diseases, but that do not have to have a particular terrorist nexus or pose an immediate national security threat to the united states without additional , does notto meet them do me any good. however, being in close contact, engaging and talking to the health community that is out in the field, running into the people that do national security, is incredibly important, because sharing the streets that we have with the same ministries that we work orh a broad sometimes -- oftentimes, the same technical ministries, every culture, or defense, in these host countries where we engage in on you mentioned, perhaps in the bio field, are the same ones that my
colleagues from hhs are working on. broadeningply nomenclature and categories does not really change my day-to-day job, and i still at the end of the day have to brief congress on how the money is being spent to meet particular targets. expecting more from the same resources is not really going to cut it. that is what we tried to broaden the discussion and the engagement. on the question about threats posed by individuals with capacity, but nonstate actors, etc., it is an inner mostly tough challenge. it does not change our particular theory of engagement, which is to start with a host country. the united states does not have the assets to go after every particular threat, and it certainly would not be hours to pursue. we do have to work with host
andtries that are aware ofm the hope of the 1540 mysia and of the resolution is that a so thetide will shift, country has strong border security, and devoted, well- trained customs officials who know what to look for, etc., you reducing the ability of terrorists to do bad things if you have facilities, labs, chemistry labs that are secured with a trained lab force that knows to lock the doors at night, then you are -- you're not reducing the threat completely, but you're certainly getting there. i do not think it has changed our theory that much. we were always worried about nonstate actors, but he continues to be the responsibly of our partners to deal with some of those. in my world, and the capacity
building world. toa couple of things, one is take a question about the different communities and opening them up, that you need to do more, it is a difficult problem because sometimes those communities are suspicious of one of the other. suggests oneience of the things the u.s. will suggest is effective practice has been you need to have people talk to one another. that is crucial. has been anfbi interesting partner in the biocide, for instance, in going out and engaging with the academic community, doing things like hosting -- helping to be a sponsor for -- and more innovative ways that they have approached this. out in a slightly different way, but to address the other project issue, which was how to get at the
individuals in some cases, beyond the organizations -- i know hhs has been interested in for instance the do it yourself havein the communal labs that sprung up in different parts of the country. this is partly an issue of responsible science. reaching out to high school students. project.rting a there is an understanding that you have to reach beyond. this is very difficult for the u.n. there is a kind of institution. the resolution does include an obligatory recommendation that states to reh